• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

How to be Christlike: Why I'm a Violent, Gun Toting Prepper

Well, at least unarmed people in a gunfree zone that are shot by one of the crazies can die with a good conscience, knowing that they did not contribute to the violence.
 
You're missing the point @steve. Yes, in the USA, a country with a culture where violence tends to include guns, gunfree zones are a magnet for criminals and are frankly silly - from a secular and practical perspective.

But @Cap has a very good point, from a spiritual perspective, I think his initial reference to quantum theory just sent this down the wrong track. Back up a bit. This is important.

The early church fathers consistently opposed violence, and many forbade Christians from joining the military, or forbade churches from baptising soldiers until they left the military.
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

That should be enough reason for us to stop and think very carefully about this issue ourselves also.
 
Idk, it just seems easy to be nonviolent while being protected by the country’s military.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
This is like saying that it was Charls’ fault that Muslim terrorists invaded their sanctuary on a Sunday morning with grenades and AK 47s killing many because he carried a snub nose 38 special to church.

If this were true, when he fired a couple of rounds at them, it should have resulted in increased bloodshed. The more rounds fired = more rounds must continue to be fired. Instead the reverse was true. One man armed with a 38 special (and 5 rounds) resisted and ran off 5 heavily armed terrorists whose stated goal was a massacre.

The quantum “theory “ above is the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard about this subject.
Click to expand...

“Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 82:4

mail


Below is my answer to a reporter requesting comment on the 25 year commemoration of the St James massacre, the attack and its relationship to lobbying around gun control or freedom to carry arms:

The St James Massacre is a very good example of why law abiding citizens must legally be able to defend themselves with lethal force.

Those who reject self-defence play into the hands of the criminals. They encourage the wicked to take advantage of them by creating a safe environment for the attacker.

Some may find this fact an inconvenient truth, but the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Tellingly in today’s times, this is treated as a controversial statement. But it is self-evident that unarmed victims are pretty helpless. It’s a reality not lost on attackers.

The commander of the terrorist attackers of our church in 1993 agreed on this issue when he admitted that they thought that our church was a gun-free zone. He continued by saying that I surprised his cadres when I returned fire.

Christians are not called to be doormats for the wicked. In fact the Bible teaches us: “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” Proverbs 25:26

Christians don’t just have a Biblical right to self-defence; they have a Biblical duty to protect the innocent. That is also why all firearm owners should stand for the protection of their right to bear arms and the right to life in the womb. These two positions—among the hottest topics on the planet—are interdependent. Both require the defence of innocent life against acts of violence and evil.

All life is precious because we are made in the image of God. And because He has created us, we have to live by His rules. They are not mere suggestions! We may only take life when He says we can! And defending innocent life abides with just such an occasion. Exodus 22:2-3 makes this very clear.

WND.COM also covered the 25 year commemoration at: https://www.wnd.com/2018/07/what-happens-when-good-people-shoot-back/

USA ministry

I’ll, Lord willing, soon be visiting Virginia, New York and South Carolina – let's meet for coffee.

Charl van Wyk
 
steve said:
Idk, it just seems easy to be nonviolent while being protected by the country’s military.
Click to expand...

The second amendment was created to protect against tyrannical governments, not so we could shoot each other. If governments did there job then social violence wouldn't be so prominent, in any country.

I personal think that quantum considerations has more spiritual implications than the average bear is willing to consider. Hope it's not a shunning offence.
 
I’m not gonna chase this one too far. @Cap I didnt say that you were retarded, but that perspective gets top billing.

I do understand both sides of the argument, and its something I’ve given much thought to. Anyone who carries regularly who hasn’t already thought it out to its possible final conclusion is foolish IMO. Don’t carry unless you can operate the equipment judiciously and effectively, and don’t carry if you havent already done the mental fortifying that’s necessary to defend your life or someone else’s with that weapon. There’s a cost associated with being a sheep dog as well as a cost associated with being a wolf or being a sheep without a sheep dog. IF you cant pay it, better hope there’s a sheep dog close by when the wolf comes.

One of a fathers primary responsibilities is to protect his family at all costs and means within his power whether that involves a firearm or some other tactic. A man who abdicates his responsibility because someone else will do it for him has no right IMO to claim the name or the position.
A man who fails to protect his family, as long as he has tried his best, has no reason for shame. One who has failed because he hasn’t prepared or wont stand for those under his covering (at the least) is not worthy of the name man or husband/father.

It’s appointed unto man once to die, I’d hate to be the one appointed to send someone to meet the judge and I left their ticket at home or in the car. Every additional soul they harm is blood on my hands.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’m not gonna chase this one too far. @Cap I didnt say that you were retarded, but that perspective gets top billing.

I do understand both sides of the argument, and its something I’ve given much thought to. Anyone who carries regularly who hasn’t already thought it out to its possible final conclusion is foolish IMO. Don’t carry unless you can operate the equipment judiciously and effectively, and don’t carry if you havent already done the mental fortifying that’s necessary to defend your life or someone else’s with that weapon. There’s a cost associated with being a sheep dog as well as a cost associated with being a wolf or being a sheep without a sheep dog. IF you cant pay it, better hope there’s a sheep dog close by when the wolf comes.

One of a fathers primary responsibilities is to protect his family at all costs and means within his power whether that involves a firearm or some other tactic. A man who abdicates his responsibility because someone else will do it for him has no right IMO to claim the name or the position.
A man who fails to protect his family, as long as he has tried his best, has no reason for shame. One who has failed because he hasn’t prepared or wont stand for those under his covering (at the least) is not worthy of the name man or husband/father.

It’s appointed unto man once to die, I’d hate to be the one appointed to send someone to meet the judge and I left their ticket at home or in the car. Every additional soul they harm is blood on my hands.
Click to expand...

"I didnt say that you were retarded, but that perspective gets top billing." I wish you would clarify this comment because it appears to me to be saying the same thing.


Your statements seem to imply that a father who has the faith in his God to defend his family is secondary to a father who has a gun.
 
@Zec’s eating all the popcorn right now.:p

@Cap, one retarded idea does not a retarded person make. I just finished saving the pro poly memes and am attempting to channel the short weird looking green guy.

I’m just saying that a father that refuses to utilize all of the means at his disposal to protect his family can claim Gods protection all he wants, but when his family is dead or brutalized because the primary weapon that God created and ordained to defend them will not use all the means at his disposal, ya cant blame God.

If you wanna use that approach, more power to you. I’m not responsible for your family. I am responsible for mine and will use any and every means available to me to do so, legal or otherwise.
 
A couple of thoughts here. Whether someone uses a baseball bat, nunchaku, gun, or their fist because that's what he/she has at their disposal at the time and is using it legitimately, it doesn't make any difference if the outcome is successful in defending one's wives, family, business employees, etc. God doesn't call on us to stand by and let criminals wreck havoc. Exodus 22:2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

But just because you preach the gospel and someone hates you for it; even expressing violent hatred, doesn't give you the right to give him the room temperature solution by any means. 1 Tim. 3:12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

Blessings and shalom.
 
I don’t get the connection between being a gun owner and being a violent person. What makes a person violent? Does a gun make a person violent?

Kind of seems like the context of the situation, of Jesus stopping Peter from fighting on the night of Jesus’ arrest, has been missed. He went willingly with those who were arresting Him because that was the whole plan. Peter was interfering with the plan.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
@Cap, one retarded idea does not a retarded person make.
Click to expand...

OK just to be clear, in regards to the rules and attitude of friendliness here on this forum I am free to call any idea presented here as retarded, or stupid, or ridiculous, or otherwise belittle any idea anyone presents here. Just trying to be clear.
 
1 Samuel 13
19Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: 20But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. 21Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. 22So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found

an armed man is a citizen an unarmed man is a slave

it is not the criminals with weapons that are the major problem it is governments

James 2
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be yeyter warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

we are not to produce converts by force
we are not to be victims either
if you are called or choose to be a martyr may it be in the will of the Lord.

a weapon is not to enforce my will jupon you it is to keep you from using force against me.
Now we may reason together.

without weapons the physically strong can rule the weak
with weapons a young bully has reason to fear a frail grandma.
should we return to the days when the physically strong prevailed
 
So here's an anecdote, a retelling of a conversation I once had with a dear brother who was (and as far as I know, still is) adamant about the use of weaponry for self defense. It has been many years, so omissions and additions may have taken place in my memory.

Why would he count himself so precious, seeing as how it was better for him to die and be with Jesus, and his life had been purchased by the one who commanded us not to resist an evil man?

Well, perhaps not for himself, but he had a duty to protect his family, God given. Therefore he must kill anyone who attacks his family. And when it comes right down to it, his family depended on him for their livelihood and protection, so he would be remiss not to defend himself with the same degree of lethality that he would defend his children. And what is more, an armed society is a polite society, there will be less serious threats if it is known that he is armed and ready to kill.

Under what circumstances then would one be struck on the cheek and offer the other cheek instead of brandishing one's weapon? Under what circumstances would one be counted a martyr who like Jesus willingly went to the slaughter?

Perhaps if a friend or very close acquaintance or even a brother in Christ, whom he knew did not mean him real harm struck him in anger, he would be honored to allow a second strike to show the love of God. (A friend striking you, knowing that you're packing that .38 you're so proud of? Yes.) And perhaps if the express reason that he was being persecuted was his faith in Jesus or he had been somehow captured alive and arming himself was no longer an option. Perhaps if he was going to be executed like in one of those 70's rapture movies he would then honored to gladly put his head on the chopping block for Jesus.

I believe he said all of these things in good faith, and held these beliefs with a mostly unsullied conscience.

Still, my understanding of Jesus would be different if He had behaved similarly. Under this doctrine Jesus should has answered
"You have 2 swords. Great. We need nine more. Let's not be all day about this, the time is closer that you think. Peter, you're the man whose heart is right on this matter, so you're the leader of this operation. Simon the zealot is your second. The rest of you guys do what they say."

Instead of wasting His time crying in the garden for hours, Jesus and His men spring the perfect trap, and the first attempt to capture Jesus goes hilariously bad. It is only after months of total war, when the armies of Rome muster and surround Jerusalem to put down this "Jesus Rebellion" , that He sacrifices Himself after a display of divine power like Elijah in 1 Kings 1:10. Only when the Romans beg Him to give Himself up for the good of the world does He proudly stride up to the headsman and relinquish His life, making a full speech about the significance of His act that outlines the plan of salvation.

I think that is the Jesus many would like to serve, but not the one that was provided.




Jim an Apostle said:
should we return to the days when the physically strong prevailed
Click to expand...

I would say the new boss is the same as the old boss.


“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
 
Cap said:
OK just to be clear, in regards to the rules and attitude of friendliness here on this forum I am free to call any idea presented here as retarded, or stupid, or ridiculous, or otherwise belittle any idea anyone presents here. Just trying to be clear.
Click to expand...

It typically best if you include why you think that way about the topic or opinions rather than just making derogatory comments without context. I can think of another recent thread about currency that came a close second and yet personal disparagement was rare/nonexistent but the idea was predominantly rejected in varying ways and expressions.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
It typically best if you include why you think that way about the topic or opinions rather than just making derogatory comments without context. I can think of another recent thread about currency that came a close second and yet personal disparagement was rare/nonexistent but the idea was predominantly rejected in varying ways and expressions.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about but what I do understand, and don't really accept is the fact that people here in the forum can treat people whatever way the want but yet expect or assume that that treatment doesn't carry over into retreats. Why would anyone want to hang out with people in person who disrespect them in a forum. As a matter of fact, this attidude really stops me from contributing financial to this cause on a regular basis in the form of a tithe.

I make every attempt to make it known that anything ANYTHING I say here is purely my belief and can easily be rejected by those who don't hold it, but I request respect as that is what I do to others. I even apologised to you for any remarks I may have made the offended you.

You yourself should understand this thought more than any other here at this current time and by the way you were treated by those who hung out with you in reference to God in the retarded view (to them) about polygamy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top